Ethnic makeup of legionaries

[Centurion Crastinus]

Is it possible to know the ethnic compositions of Imperial Legionaries. Could it be possible that some of the legionaries recruited from North Africa were black sub-saharan africans?

[Megas Methuselah]

If those Africans possesed Roman Citizenship, then certainly. A lot of military settlers in the provinces with citizenship intermingled with the local population, so this is indeed possible.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The North Africans weren't exactly black in today's sense were they? I mean, they had dark skin, but so do the people India. Were the North Africans of that time part of the African races, or the Asian/Mediterranean? Right now, North Africa is populated by mostly Arabs, descendants of Muslim conquerors, but in the Antiquity tribes like Berbers inhabited North Africa. Unless I am mistaken, Berbers weren't of the same race as, say, the Tuareg people, which were true Africoids (similar to the outdated term "Negroid).

[Zeibek]

I'm not sure but I think that at least the Tuareg (or Tamasheq) languages were a subdivision of the Berber language group. Berber was, and still is, more of a blanket term for several peoples there. As for their ethnic makeup I've really no proper knowledge besides the assumption that they were a bit more tanned than the Arabs but otherwise very much like the Semites.

[Skandinav]

The anthropologist Hans F. K Günther states in his book The Racial Elements of European History that a negro strain is found all over the Mediterranean area because of slaves and negroes in the Roman army and it sounds likely because most long-established imperial legions based in the provinces drew heavily on the local populations and sometimes beyond the frontier.

[Apgad]

Well, I've seen Gladiator, so I know that at least some of them were black...

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, I've seen Gladiator, so I know that at least some of them were black...

Those were the gladiators, who came from all over the world, not the legionaries. All of the legionaries in Gladiator were white unless I am mistaken. I don't know if the Romans recruited non-Roman/non-Hellenic people into their legions. I'm sure men of mixed blood were levied into legions, but I don't know if the Romans accepted the natives, which they saw as inferior people and barbarians.

[Mediolanicus]

The North Africans weren't exactly black in today's sense were they? I mean, they had dark skin, but so do the people India. Were the North Africans of that time part of the African races, or the Asian/Mediterranean? Right now, North Africa is populated by mostly Arabs, descendants of Muslim conquerors, but in the Antiquity tribes like Berbers inhabited North Africa. Unless I am mistaken, Berbers weren't of the same race as, say, the Tuareg people, which were true Africoids (similar to the outdated term "Negroid).


Northern Africa is still populated mostly by Berbers, Lybians etc...
The Arab invasion was largly military. So apart from war veterans getting a piece of land, there weren't many real Arabs living there, and still aren't.
The local population just "Arabized" or how do I say this?

[konny]

Could it be possible that some of the legionaries recruited from North Africa were black sub-saharan africans?

Yes, that's possible: a Sub-Sahrian could have come into the Roman Empire as a slave. He or one of his descendants could have been freed, and the same or one of his children could have become a Roman citizen. After that he could have joined the Legions. It would have been much eayser (and more likely) for Sub-Saharians to join the Auxilia without beeing citizens.

[Connacht]

I don't know if the Romans recruited non-Roman/non-Hellenic people into their legions.

Gauls, Iberians Illyrians, and Eastern soldiers, for instance.
And at a certain point of history even Germans (but this happens later IIRC).

So I don't think it's impossible they could recruit a black African.

[Chris1959]

Wasn't one of the "perks" for a Auxilary that when they had completed their 25 years service they received Citizenship. So it would be quite likely that the offspring of a veteran Auxilia would follow their father's footsteps but in the Legions. Also am I right in believing the Romans showed little prejudice based on the colour of a persons skin, more on wether that person was "civilised" or not according to their definition.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Gauls, Iberians Illyrians, and Eastern soldiers, for instance.
And at a certain point of history even Germans (but this happens later IIRC).

So I don't think it's impossible they could recruit a black African.

All of the abovementioned people were recruited in the times of the empire, not during the republic. Were there any Negroid Africans in North Africa. I am not sure if Berbers qualified as true Africans. They weren't truly black either, just dark-skinned. However, as I have already said, I am sure the romans recruited mixed-race people. Why do the historians make such a big deal about Romans recruiting barbarians in their armies during the late republic? Probably because the Romans didn't do it before. Just because a legion was recruited in Gaul, doesn't mean that ethnic Gauls made up the legion. It is more likely that mixed Romano-Gauls and Roman settler/colonists were recruited. Although I do have to admit the Romans heavily recruited auxilia from foreigners. However, the auxiliary soldiers were no "legionaries", and this thread is about the ethnic makeup of legionaries, not auxilia. The Romans would wait until the region was sufficiently Romanized before recruiting the natives.

[Megas Methuselah]

All of the abovementioned people were recruited in the times of the empire, not during the republic. Were there any Negroid Africans in North Africa. I am not sure if Berbers qualified as true Africans. They weren't truly black either, just dark-skinned. However, as I have already said, I am sure the romans recruited mixed-race people. Why do the historians make such a big deal about Romans recruiting barbarians in their armies during the late republic? Probably because the Romans didn't do it before. Just because a legion was recruited in Gaul, doesn't mean that ethnic Gauls made up the legion. It is more likely that mixed Romano-Gauls and Roman settler/colonists were recruited. Although I do have to admit the Romans heavily recruited auxilia from foreigners. However, the auxiliary soldiers were no "legionaries", and this thread is about the ethnic makeup of legionaries, not auxilia. The Romans would wait until the region was sufficiently Romanized before recruiting the natives.

If a "native" was in possesion of Roman citizenship, he could merely go enlist in the Legion as a legionary, not an auxiliary. An enlistee's ethnic background really didn't matter much, as long as he had Roman citizenship, which not only could be attained from serving the full time in the auxiliary, but could also be rewarded(or bought, for that matter).
:yes:

[Ibrahim]

Northern Africa is still populated mostly by Berbers, Lybians etc...
The Arab invasion was largly military. So apart from war veterans getting a piece of land, there weren't many real Arabs living there, and still aren't.
The local population just "Arabized" or how do I say this?

yep, its Arabized. the locals picked up the language and religion, not much else. I can barely understand them though-they have a thick accent (look up Algerian Arabic in wikipedia-very good source). Morrocans almost speak a different language. explains why I understand Egyptian or Iraqis, but not morrocans:yes:

[lobf]

Anyone ever been to Fez? What a crazy place.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I've read about it in National Geographic a couple of times, but haven't actually been their. Egypt is the only North African country I have been to. By crazy do you mean the varied and numerous street traffic and all of the street vendors clogging up already congested roadway? That's what struck me as the craziest thing, although most Third World Countries have similar cities.

[lobf]

I've read about it in National Geographic a couple of times, but haven't actually been their. Egypt is the only North African country I have been to. By crazy do you mean the varied and numerous street traffic and all of the street vendors clogging up already congested roadway? That's what struck me as the craziest thing, although most Third World Countries have similar cities.

Heh, we'd totally derail this pretty interesting topic with the wild and different things about Fez and Egypt. I've tried several ways to summarize but I can't. So perhaps in another topic...

On this subject as I understand it, much of the Mediterranean was honkeys (which is to say lighter skinned), with "black" Africans being being located below the Sahara. So yeah, it's possible that some served like how TA suggested, but it would probably have been a minority.

[Anastasios Helios]

The term "Subsaharan African" is a little bit racist. It was invented by Europeans to suggest that there is some type of invisible barrier that seperates the Saharan peoples from the peoples who lived south of the desert. There isn't really a boundary where people suddenly jump from "Berber" to "Negriod" but it is more of a melange. If you go into desert villages in Tunisia you can often find people who would qualify as "Negroid" and if you see the Touregs of Mali you will find some who have light complexions and "European" features (Of course it becomes more and more rare as you travel south.) The Saharan peoples interacted quite often through trade and naturally this contributed to the mix of ethnicities that you can find in Northern Africa.

I have no doubt that many "black Africans" made their way into the Legions. Read the story of St. Maurice for example. He lived during the time of the late empire and was a black man in command of an entire legion. :)

[Aemilius Paulus]

The term "Subsaharan African" is a little bit racist.

Let me guess, are you from America? Only they can be so politically correct. Subsahran African is probably the most neutral term I have ever heard. Beats the term "Negroid" which many more people find offensive. What's the currently politically correct term for the black race anyway? "African American" only applies to black people from America, but since the term black isn't so politically correct anymore, then what would be the right way to call a black African?

Wasn't the Saharan desert a pretty good barrier though? I mean trade caravans still traversed it, but not much else.

[Anastasios Helios]

I'm definately American. ^^

I prefer to use black American or black African...
"African-American" kinda implies that American blacks are recent immigrants to a country that they've dwelt in for close to 400 years now. No one uses "European-American" for white Americans...

That's one thing about us Americans...if we're not politically correct, we're branded as racist and some type of scandal ensures. *sighs*

[Aemilius Paulus]

Living in the "freest state in the world" with the much-flaunted, so called "freedom of speech" huh? :laugh4:

Man, gotta love the hypocrisy.

You get more freedom of speech in Russia, although just be sure you don't speak ill of Comrade Putin though; things will happen to you...!!! Just kidding. I support him very much, he is still the de facto ruler of Russia. He also has (had) the highest approval rating of any President in a European/American country.

[Anastasios Helios]

But...to return to the topic, the Sahara is hardly more an intimidating target than, let us say, the Alps which the Etruscan Rhaetans managed to cross during their migrations from Italy long ago. And it is common mainstream knowledge that before settling in present day Niger and Mali, the Touraeg people were of Libyan origin. The Sahara isn't as impassible as one may thing. ;)

[Quintus Cunctator]

I'm certainly no expert but I've always thought of the Saharan desert as a pretty good barrier and certainly not on par with the Alps. And a little research backs this up, Wikipedia states that the Saharan desert is approximately the size of the continental United States, which if you're wondering is about 1200 miles from north to south (it depends on where you measure it but 1200 is not using Texas). The width of the Alps by contrast are around 300 miles across. Certainly width alone isn't the defining criteria for difficulty of passage, especially when talking about a mountain range height at least is a concern. And certainly the Alps boasts some tall mountains, the tallest of which, Mont Blanc, is some 15,774 feet. However the Alps is not a contiguous wall of 15,000 foot peaks, it has a number of passes some of which are as low as 436 feet which I imagine are probably relatively easily traversable considering "Roughly one quarter of the land lying between the summits of the Alps is available for cultivation." I very much doubt the same claim can be made for the Sahara.

I don't know about Europeans inventing the term Sub-Saharan African, or, if they did what their intentions for doing so was, but the Saharan desert is not an "invisible barrier" and it is not comparable to the Alps. That there is widespread ethnic mixing today is not surprising to me since we can sail around it, fly over it, or drive through it (though I imagine its hardly a drive to be undertaken lightly). To the ancients though, I imagine it was a major barrier to human interaction and movement.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Crossing the Sahara is hard in any season, crossing the Alps is relatively easy in the Spring or Summer, you don't have to go OVER the mountains.

The likelyhood of genuine Black (means the same as Negroid, which is bad Latin) men serving in a Republican Legion is pretty much zero in practical terms. Later in the Empire the figure climbs but to be honest most of the Africans mentioned in Roman hstory are Phonecian, Septimus Severus was from Carthage, for example. To lable them "Black" is historically revisionist. This is support by writers ethnographic descriptions. Arrian, writing during the later Empire, says that the Indians are "pure" black and not like the Etheopians, who are more a muddy brown.

This suggests that the population of Northern Africa was darker than that of Southern Europe, but not "Black". On the other hand when Herodotus describes Etheopians he is clearly describing fairly typical Sub-Saharan features and colouring.

thorny question, made harder by the current political climate and the fact that Classical geography has different classifications and can't be directly related to out modern understanding.

[Anastasios Helios]

Those are very good and interesting responses. I will leave the subject here because it is a short skip and a hop from asking the question: "Who/What exactly is black?" And that....can become a bit heated I fear...

The Sahara is definately one of the most (if not the most) hostile environment in the world. Despite this, i'm sure that there has been a bit of migration over the years between North and South. The people who live in every environment eventually discover ways to survive in their environment. The Shepra(?) people of Nepal are experts of surviving in the Himalyas for example. The ethnic diversity of the Sahara regions is testament enough to prove that it is not so much as a barrier. Therefore to me, it doesn't seem so far fetched to see a few "black" people in the ranks of the legionnaires.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Rome controlled just the northernmost tip of North Africa. The Roman rule was pretty much all along the Mediterranean coast of North Africa but it did not go far inland, as you can see from this map showing the farthest extents of the Roman Empire:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Roman_Empire_map.svg/557px-Roman_Empire_map.svg.png

There was no reason to. Beyond the strip was lifeless sands and mountains. The Northern parts of Tunis and Algeria were inhabited somewhat more, with more inland areas under the Roman control, but that was because those lands weren't wastelands. If you go to those areas that were a part of the Roman Empire, you won't really find many true Africans. Those that you do encounter are probably relatively recent immigrants. Mediterranean people, such as Semites, Berbers, Arabs, and descendants of Numidians inhabit those lands. True Africoids, with the distinctive head shape, curly hair, flattened nose and somewhat protruding lips lived below the Saharan Desert.

Therefore chances of finding an "Ethiopian", as Romans called the true blacks, in the legion were probably very low, although there were probably a few black stragglers from the other side of Sahara in the legions. People of mixed races were much more common since the "True Africans" did not migrate to North Africa en masse and usually dissolved in the native population. We need to discard the stereotype that a huge and diverse continent like Africa has only one kind of people living in it. Just because Romans were in Africa doesn't mean that their legions had many blacks in it.

To Anastasios Garamantos (And that....can become a bit heated I fear...): as long as people stop worrying about sounding politically correct all the time, everything will be fine.

[Anastasios Helios]

I'm done here. I've said all that I want to say....

[Centurion Crastinus]

Political correctness is absurd. People just need to have thicker skin.

[Chris1959]

Political Correctness is the foul art of forcing people into categories, fight it by treating all people for what they are, individuals with their own thoughts, feelings and opinions!

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

What would interest me more is: were there Romans in the Queen of Nubia's Royal Guard? We know that they had contact and the Romans at least one time tried to subdue Nubia / Kush / Ehtiopia.

And Hellenes in the Bantu kingdoms of the Niger area? They were in Baktria after all, why not in Africa-below-Sahara?

[Aemilius Paulus]

And Hellenes in the Bantu kingdoms of the Niger area? They were in Baktria after all, why not in Africa-below-Sahara?

There are no records of Hellenes going beyond Sahara. Even the Ancient Egyptians did not do that in their couple of thousand years of existence. The Phoenician admiral Hanno most likely reached what is now Gulf of Guinea and Mt. Cameroon, right by Nigeria (actually even farther than Nigeria, Mt Cameroon is in Cameroon). That is the farthest the Phoenicians probably ever sailed.

The farthest and the most unbelievable voyage of a Hellene, in my opinion was of the Massalian Greek named Pytheas. According to his account he rounded Spain, proving it was a peninsula, reached Brittany (modern-day France) and eventually the famed Tin Isles themselves, where he was greeted by Celts who showed him the tin mines. Pytheas then proceeded to reach the tip of moder-day Scotland and then sailing North until reaching Thule, which was most likely to be Iceland, according to Pytheas' description ("the ever-shining fire" of the "immense summit" - most likely the volcanoes of Iceland, since there are no active volcanoes on either the Shetland or Faroe Islands). Pytheas described the "midnight sun" as well as the peculiar sea sludge "neither jelly, nor water, nor earth" on which "one could neither walk nor sail" which is a type of ice sludge that forms only near the Poles. After reaching Iceland he sailed by the Scandinavia, near modern-day Norway and landed in Denmark, "the Amber Isle" too. From this point on he took pretty much the same way home. All of this time in 75-100 ton cargo trading ship. He left the "memoirs" of his voyage, titled "The Ocean" but unfortunately it did not survive to our times. His work was however widely quoted, so we are not entirely clueless. Pytheas' accounts were long dismissed as fanciful and false tall-tales until recently.

[Majd il-Romani]

The Phoenician admiral Hanno most likely reached what is now Gulf of Guinea and Mt. Cameroon, right by Nigeria (actually even farther than Nigeria, Mt Cameroon is in Cameroon). That is the farthest the Phoenicians probably ever sailed.



the Phonecians were actually the first ones to circumnavigate Africa.

and I don't think that blackfricans were recruited around Carthage and western North Africa, but I believe that maybe a few Nubians and Ethiopians would be found in a Legion recruited in Southern Egypt...

[Aemilius Paulus]

the Phonecians were actually the first ones to circumnavigate Africa.


Yeah, but that was under the Necho's II orders. Technically it was a Egyptian expedition. The Phoenicians did not do it themselves. They didn't seem to have any significant enough motivations to do so. Just like Vitus Bering was a Danish explorer who discovered Alaska but Russia got all the credit because Bering was at Russia's service at that time.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

There are no records of Hellenes going beyond Sahara. Even the Ancient Egyptians did not do that in their couple of thousand years of existence. The Phoenician admiral Hanno most likely reached what is now Gulf of Guinea and Mt. Cameroon, right by Nigeria (actually even farther than Nigeria, Mt Cameroon is in Cameroon). That is the farthest the Phoenicians probably ever sailed.

The farthest and the most unbelievable voyage of a Hellene, in my opinion was of the Massalian Greek named Pytheas. According to his account he rounded Spian, proving it was a peninsula, reached Brittany (modern-day France) and eventually the famed Tin Isles themselves, where he was greeted by Celts who showed him the tin mines. Pytheas then proceeded to reach the tip of moder-day Scotland and then sailing North until reaching Thule, which was most likely to be Iceland, according to Pytheas' description ("the ever-shining fire" of the "immense summit" - most likely the volcanoes of Iceland, since there are no active volcanoes on either the Shetland or Faroe Islands). Pytheas described the "midnight sun" as well as the peculiar sea sludge "neither jelly, nor water, nor earth" on which "one could neither walk nor sail" which is a type of ice sludge that forms only near the Poles. After reaching Iceland he sailed by the Scandinavia, near modern-day Norway and landed in Denmark, "the Amber Isle" too. From this point on he took pretty much the same way home. All of this time in 75-100 ton cargo trading ship. He left the "memoirs" of his voyage, titled "The Ocean" but unfortunately it did not survive to our times. His work was however widely quoted, so we are not entirely clueless. Pytheas' accounts were long dismissed as fanciful and false tall-tales until recently.
Why was it thought to be fairytales? How can someone of ancient time make this up? I mean this is really scary stuff what he tells and I can't see how someone from Greece should invent the midnight sun...

Also wasn't there a Greek expedition which circumnavigated Africa and told after the return that they had been "so far south that the sun was in the north at midday"?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Why was it thought to be fairytales? How can someone of ancient time make this up? I mean this is really scary stuff what he tells and I can't see how someone from Greece should invent the midnight sun...

Also wasn't there a Greek expedition which circumnavigated Africa and told after the return that they had been "so far south that the sun was in the north at midday"?

Oh trust me, there were plenty of people making up wild stories about far-off lands in the times of Antiquity. Take Herodotus for example. He is my favorite historian and is probably the most accurate as well as the most objective one in all of Classical Greece. His accounts of Persia show virtually no bias against it. On the contrary, the praises them. However, just read his tales of India. Fairy Tales... he talks about various half-men, half-animals as well as other things. It was very common in the ancient times to make things up like that. Not only this, but the ice sludge seemed very odd to the Greek mariners who have seen water for their entire life and never as Pytheas described it. On the other hand, they have never been to India, and were well aware that animals can be very different. They have also heard of half apes, half men living in Africa (gorillas found by Hanno as well as other Phoenicians expeditions), making the fanciful descriptions of Herodutus not so unlikely. The Greeks as well as the other ancient people believed that the Far North was eternally dark because it was almost always winter there, and during winter, the days grow shorter. That is why the Greeks and later the romans as well as Medieval historians did not believe Pytheas.

As for the Greek circumnavigation, I have not heard of Hellenes doing that, but nevertheless it is quite possible, especially during the Ptolemaic rule of Egypt. Since the Phoenicians ad tight control over the Herculean Pillars (Gibraltar), Greeks could no use it (Pytheas slipped by during on of the Punic Wars, second one I believe, when the Phoenician Qarthadastim were busy fighting the Romans), the Red - Mediterranean Sea canal would have been a likely route. When I said Hellenes going beyond Sahara, I meant by land. The Greek circumnavigation of Africa didn't teach the Greeks much about the dry part of Africa very much. That Hellenic expedition had little time to spend on land. They never ventured very far ashore.

[Atilius]

Since the Phoenicians ad tight control over the Herculean Pillars (Gibraltar), Greeks could no use it (Pytheas slipped by during on of the Punic Wars, second one I believe, when the Phoenician Qarthadastim were busy fighting the Romans) No, Pytheas' voyage is placed in the late 4th century.

[Aemilius Paulus]

No, Pytheas' voyage is placed in the late 4th century.

Funny, I checked Wikipedia, and it confirmed your statement. However, the book where I have read the story of Pytheas say it happened around 240 BC. I have it right in front of em. I'm guessing the book had outdated information since it was written in 1980.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Thanks for the explanation, Aemilius Paulus.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Well,

discussing the ethnic make up of legionaries, going back to the original topic is WAY to broad a question, largely depending on the time-frame you one is discussing.

Serving in the legions was only open to those who held Roman citizenship. That means that up until the Social Wars (in the early 1st century B.C.) the legions (in theory) primarily consisted of those living around Rome and (perhaps) in Latium. The other units were still formally speaking allies, although they probably were indistinguishable from the legions proper in uniform, training and deployment. After the Social War the legions were (at least nominally) raised in Italy and thus in theory all legions had the same ethnic make-up as that of Italy.

As with much Roman policies, this would be theory. One problem has already been mentioned: non-Italians having been granted Roman citizenship. Most notably those serving in the auxilia that had fulfilled their obligations, and the local elite (who usually had been granted Roman citizenship upon conquest, to bind them to the Romans), or those who had alligned them with powerful Roman families. Also, IIRC some cities were granted Roman citizenship (the colonia) and thus their citizens received Roman citizenship as well.
Second is that army units (probably) recruited locally, and that it was not only the auxilia which did so. To my knowledge there is evidence for legislation ordering purges of the legions (those inelegible which served should be thrown out and punished). One of the solutions to the legal issues was granting citizenship upon enlistment to those who were not yet Roman citizens. Secondly, Gaul and the Balkans became favorite recruiting grounds for the army (up to the point where it became a topos), and it is unlikely that none of these recruits went to the legions. And of course in times of crisis all regulations were waived. Then even slaves could be admitted to service (and granted freedom and citizenship upon entry). So it is likely that if legions stayed in one region for a long time, that their compisition started to reflect that of the region it was stationed in. Even more so if some how the soldiers who had formed relationships with local women were able to get the marriage legalized, and citizenship rights also granted to their sons (who could have followed in their father's footsteps).
The auxilia were of course recruited among the non-Roman citizens, often their name reflecting the original recruiting ground. And, alledgedly, recruiting of locals into them (as either new units or replacements) started quickly upon arrival. One of the interpretations to one of the Vindolanda tablets (the one mentioning the Brittunculi (little Brittons)) is that it discussed the fighting qualities of the Brittons with the purpose of local recruiting in mind. It is dated within 2 decades (originally within a decade) of the arrival of the Romans on the site. So they probably reflected the the ethnic make-up of their local station quite quicky.
Probable exception to this are the "elite" or "guard" units. The soldiers in the former probably were continuously recruited in Italy. The latter were (at least until the early second century) primarily recruited among Germans of the Lower-Rhine (judging by the (horse-)guard grave stones found in Rome) and from then on from the Balkans, although riders from other regular units did filter through.

After the grant of universal citizenship by Caracalla the legions and the army could and did recruit everywhere (although the Balkans did remain a favorite recruiting ground). The auxilia probably were more and more a mix from people recruited from outside the empire, or barbarian prisoners pressed into service. Also, paradoxically, the auxilia had become more prestigious than the legions by that time.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

There are no records of Hellenes going beyond Sahara. Even the Ancient Egyptians did not do that in their couple of thousand years of existence. The Phoenician admiral Hanno most likely reached what is now Gulf of Guinea and Mt. Cameroon, right by Nigeria (actually even farther than Nigeria, Mt Cameroon is in Cameroon). That is the farthest the Phoenicians probably ever sailed.


I think there is the chance that the odd Greek trader sailed the Red Sea and up along the east coast of Africa. It is generally accepted that there was naval trade from via the Red Sea to India, and presumably the same (in smaller intensity) along the east coast of Africa (the land of Punt and IIRC the queen Sheba legends are located there). In fact it was much of this trade that Alexandria's wealth was based on, especially under the Ptolemies.
It has to be said though that to my knowledge the Red Sea was never intensively sailed by the Greeks themselves (unlike of course the Mediterranean), and there alwas was more of a fascination among the Greeks and Romans with the territories to the north (where all those relentless invading barbarians came from to rape and pillage in civilized Greek (and Roman) territory) and east than the territories to the south.

[Olaf The Great]

Wow, I did not know a Greek was the first one to (possibly) discover Iceland.

I just wish I lived in a time when Explorers still existed(Astronauts don't count) I would love to sail the seas, finding new places.:egypt:

[Megas Methuselah]

Also, paradoxically, the auxilia had become more prestigious than the legions by that time.

That's interesting. Can you enlighten me? :yes:

[SwissBarbar]

I'm definately American. ^^

I prefer to use black American or black African...
"African-American" kinda implies that American blacks are recent immigrants to a country that they've dwelt in for close to 400 years now. No one uses "European-American" for white Americans...

That's one thing about us Americans...if we're not politically correct, we're branded as racist and some type of scandal ensures. *sighs*

we're talking about black skinned people in a roman army about 500 - 800 years before the skandinavians or 1100 - 1400 years before columbus discovered "america" , so using a term that consists anything that is connected to the word "america" is placed worse than a hedgehogs in a balloonfactory.

btw: roman legionnaires did not say "SIR YES SIR" and "YES DRILL SERGEANT" :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



to the topic:

a great empire like the roman can not be defended and expanded by only using troops recruited in Roma itself. OF COURSE they did recruit legionnaires from other Regions, they had to. Thats the roman way of civilise the known world, make them romans and of course let them join the army when ready.

So if ever romans got in touch with black american ^^ people, they could join the legions if they obtained roman citizenship.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

That's interesting. Can you enlighten me? :yes:

Well,

I have to slightly modify my statement. Going by the Notitua Dignitatum (a late 4th century list oof offices and military commands), the legiones palatinae (the legions in the central field armies) are formally still the most more prestigeous (followed by the auxilia palatinae and then the regional field armies) by law and formalities. Which probably has more to do with tradition and conservatism than anything else

Yet judging by numbers involved in the palatinae field-armies (that is more or less what could be considered the central reserve), and usually commanded by either the emperor or the central magister militiae the auxilia are in reality the more important and most valued. There are 65 auxilia in the West vs only 12 legions. On a similar note, when asking for reinforcements from the Caesar Julian the emperor Constantius he primarily asks for auxiliae, not legions.

What the reason was/is? Probably fighting prowess, in combination with demographic and economic problems within the empire. Even when taking the literary topoi in consideration, it seems that in general the best troops were those recruited among the Germanic peoples (Goths, Alamanni, Franks), and those fighting them. As an illustration, it seems that at Mursa (a battle in one of the civil wars) the western army was outnumbered almost 2:1 by the eastern army but alledgedly inflicted far more casualties on its opponent (IIRC something like 50% more). I am not completely certain, but in the depictions of Constantine storming the Milvian bridge on his arch, it is the auxilia which are shown as his crack troops.
Another issue might be in recruiting and enlistment conditions (i.e. stipulations where the soldiers would serve), with many Roman citizen recruited units more and more being tied to their base/local area. Another is that probably in the legions there were additional tasks not forced upon the auxilia. IIRC there are stipulations known that specifically [B]ban[B] Roman citizens from enlisting in the auxilia.